-15, Lows Keep Getting LOWER!
Drilling in Alaska would help with the dwindling gas supply, but it's also a monopoly waiting to happen. Open up the fields for drilling and oil companies will charge whatever they want. Perhaps this is a problem that should have been addressed long ago.
Being a part of Alaska state government I can tell you that Mike is correct on the amount of oil that could/would be flowing, and that Brandon isn't quite right with his comment.
The ANWR fields are/would be leased through a bidding process, and a number of companies or partnerships would probably end up owning various pieces. The price of the oil is set by the market. Alaska oil for West Coast delivery generally sells for a few percent less than the Texas light crude price that is usually the number you hear on the news.
Alaska is also in the final stages of making a gas pipeline happen, which will also add to our strategic assets in case of disruption in suply form elsewhere. I don't believe the environuts will be able to do more than blather about that one. It will take perhaps seven years to come online, however.
If the gas prices are regulated, then I have less of a problem with the Alaskan drilling. I am still angered that no alternative solution was sought after years ago to avoid disrupting the preserve, but desperate times do call for desperate measures.
Secondly, I don't think that the environmentalists alone are to blame. Why didn't the government years ago regulate the automobile industry to make vehicles more fuel-efficent, or funnel money towards research towards hybrid technology? I guess such gov't intervention was avoided because of our "free market" and lobbyists. I mean, God forbid we have a socialist economy, right?
Brandon, to follow up:
Perhaps my use of "environuts" was impolitic, but as a Greenpeace guy who visited here told me personally, they are against all oil drilling. Period. Meanwhile, he flew up here on a jet airliner...
The government years ago DID regulate fleet fuel economy. Hybrid technology is already at your local dealer. The hard fact is that the gasoline and other oil based fuels are simply the most powerful for the least amount of resources to obtain them of anything that's available. And that's due to the physics, not the lobbyists.
That may well be true, but what about increased/improved public transportation to combat the number of vehicles on the road? Or better sidewalks? Where I live there are no sidewalks, or I would walk everywhere I went.
And hybrid tech. is availible, but had American companies introduced it there would be more vehicles at a lower price operating on such technology.
Furthermore, if some people would be more willing to lose a little money (mainly the executives at said companies and the common consumer) then alternative fuel sources could be investigated and later introduced.
Damn hindsight...always twenty/twenty.
Wa wa wa
Gas prices too high? Thank Operation Iraqi Liberation. AKA OIL
Just now are US gas prices comparable to what the rest of the world pays.
Buy a smaller car, take the bus, ride a bike.
THIS COMMENTER HAS FREQUENTLY MADE FALSE ASSERTIONS REGARDING IRAQ-URNANIUM-NIGER and the IRAQ-AL QUEDA CONNECTION.
HE REPEATEDLY DENIED THAT ANY INFORMATION CONTRARY TO HIS FLAWED VIEW EXISTED EVEN WHEN POINTED TO THE PRIMARY GOVERNMENT SOURCES: THE UNANIMOUS REPORT OF THE SENATE INTELL COMMITTEE AND THE UNANIMOUS REPORT OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION AND THE BRITISH BUTLER REVIEW.
ANY COMMENT HE MAKES HERE IS LIABLE TO BE LACED WITH SIMILAR DISINFORMATION AND READERS SHOULD BE FOREWARNED.
Edited By Siteowner
Too bad it would be over 7-12 years before that ANWR oil would even be available.
And best estimates are that there is about 11 billion barrels in ANWR, we use 7 billion per year. In otherwords we have about a year and a halfs supply of oil up there.
THIS COMMENTER HAS FREQUENTLY MADE FALSE ASSERTIONS REGARDING IRAQ-URNANIUM-NIGER and the IRAQ-AL QUEDA CONNECTION.
HE REPEATEDLY DENIED THAT ANY INFORMATION CONTRARY TO HIS FLAWED OPINION EXISTED EVEN WHEN POINTED TO THE PRIMARY GOVERNMENT SOURCES: THE UNANIMOUS REPORT OF THE SENATE INTELL COMMITTEE AND THE UNANIMOUS REPORT OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION AND THE BRITISH BUTLER REVIEW.
ANY COMMENT HE MAKES HERE IS LIABLE TO BE LACED WITH SIMILAR DISINFORMATION AND READERS SHOULD BE FOREWARNED.
Edited By Siteowner
Edited By Siteowner
Sorry toad, but fake statistic alert. The ANWR oil would be pumped over a period of 30 years or more at 1 million bbls/day. It would diversify our sources and make us less dependent on any given country that we import from.
And if Clinton hadn't vetoed the opening back in 1995 the oil would be available...about now.
Sir toad does bring up an important question: Just how does the US compare with the rest of the world as far as gas prices... or even to historic highs domestically? See GM Roper's post on this. Verrrry educational.
The short answer: we pay a whole lot less. And, we still pay less (in normalized $) than the historic highs from the era of the Arab Oil Embargo and Jimmy Carter's stagflation.
Thanks Robert: Glad you could provide some factual perspective from an Alaskan point of view. It must be pretty aggravating that all these enviroweanies, many of whom fly on private jets, own multiple homes and drive gas guzzling SUV's are telling Alaskans, and the rest of us how to live.
Interesting that the native people who live in the region are some of the most vocal in support of ecologically safe drilling.
Oh, and did anyone other than me notice how many time Brandon used the word "regulate?"
Hyper regulation is part of the problem Brandon. It's all rolled in together with the fact that enviroweanies, or as Robert says "environuts" have resisted development of energy resources ANYWHERE! These same folks have used hyper-regulatory procedure to impede oil referinery development as well.
The reason we pay less is because we tax it a lot less than the Europe countries.
And yes, God forbid we have a socialist economy. Europe has many socialist economies and the best performers over there are hovering around 15% unemployment. Until socialism can prove it is not a disaster, then we should stay very far away from it.
A portion of ANWR was established for the SOLE purpose of oil exploration. Drilling for oil in an area that we meant for...drilling for oil? Gasp! The horror!
The position, then, of the enviroweenies is like this:
I have a backyard, and I set aside the left corner for a garden. I finally get around to planting and growing in the garden. According to the greenies, I shouldn't dare do it...it would be immoral. Never mind that was the intent all along!
OK, accepting your numbers, 1 million barrels/day for 30 years. (And, for what it's worth, the US is currently using 20+ million barrels/day.)
So, we have this trickling in for a while. Then what? Sooner (probably) or later, supply is going to outweigh demand. We will no longer have fossil fuels to kick around.
We can prepare for that now or wait until, "Whoops! Gas is up to $5...I mean $15 a gallon..." and our economy collapses. Tell me: Is it more fiscally responsible to act now or later?
Mike isn't offerning ANWR drilling as a permanent fix. He never said that, he merely is saying that every barrel of oil we can produce domestically helps up exponentially both in the short term and long term. Conservation is great- and I would agree that the people driving Expeditions, Hummers, Escalades, etc, with no one else in the car are greedy idiots- but conservation alone will not decrease our dependence on the Middle East nor will it alone alleviate high gas prices.
Democrats' have no answers to this problem outside of platitudes and their imaginary world where everyone drives a Prius and no one in Detroit has a job.
We should consider all options, ANWR being one of them, yet the so-called leadership of both parties continue to keep their heads in the sand while cautiously avoiding anything resembling leadership.
But the ANWR solution is so costly and short-term, is it really even worth it? After spending so much money on ANWR, were are our resources going to be for the next solution?
Thanks Mike R:
Extreme environmental groups, and left wing Democrats have led the charge to stop any and all domestic oil production.
For Dan and Brandon, here's a bit of history:
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) , finalized in December of 1980, designated the 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain within ANWR a study area, to be evaluated for its oil and gas development potential. The resource evaluation, conducted by the Department of Interior, was released in 1987 and recommended that Congress open the Coastal Plain for oil and gas exploration and development. Since then, Alaska's Congressional delegation, our Governors and State Legislature's have been working toward that end. In 1995, the U.S. House and Senate approved Coastal Plain Development as part of a balanced budget act, but the entire measure was vetoed by President Clinton.
Source: http://www.anwr.org/archives/
pol...cal_history.php
So let's recap shall we? Since the original act was approved in 1980 and following a period of study, agreement to allow development of petroleum resources in ANWR was reached in 1995... Only to be vetoed by Clinton.
Had he not done so, we would have added ANWR's contribution to our energy needs long before the present emergency. We might also have proceeded to develop other petroleum resources that would smooth our eventual transition to other energy technology.
No, it wouldn't solve all of our problems for all time... But then, neither does CONSTANT OBSTRUCTION!!!
True, Clinton could have not vetoed the bill and we could already depleted ANWR's sources, or at best have a two-year reserve built up. I just don't see how it's worth the trouble.
This just seems like a great excuse for liberals and conservatives to yell at each other.
But does anyone here believe that
sorry...
Does anyone here believe that the interruption of 1.4 million barrels of oil is the real reason for the massive surge in gas prices? In a country that uses over 20 million barrels per day? Is there no more foreign oil to fill that gap, or do you believe that domestic oil is that much cheaper (you should look into that).
Energy self-sufficiency is an important political goal. But it's not like oil companies are charging bargain prices for that domestic stuff, nor is this interruption in the supply chain responsible for this horrifying gouging that we're seeing now.
Again, it's nice to have another reason to hate your political opposition, but that's all this is.
My point is, we need other solutions. Changes in lifestyles. We can't keep driving hummers - or even Prius' around indefinitely.
I don't know how good the democrats' answer is, but the Green Party's answer is to move away from fossil fuel dependence altogether (I think the Dems are sorta on board with this). We need to stop thinking personal auto (whether SUV, electric, hybrid or even coal-powered) and move to:
1. Mass Transit
2. Walking
3. Bicycling, and,
4. Living in smaller circles (which makes all of the above easier).
This is what we need to do. That IS an answer. It is an answer that we'll all be saddled with eventually, whether we want it or not.
The question is, will we wisely embrace it sooner (like, now), so that there is not an economic collapse or will we wait and wait and wait until it's too late to avoid a collapse?
And before you make a tiresome charge of hypocrisy, I'm a cyclist, walker and bus rider who lives in a small circle.
The town I live in is sprawling, though not that big, and has terrible public transit and sidewalks. If you try to walk anywhere here, you stand the chance of getting ran over by a Ford or Chevy pick-up. I love to walk and would if my life wasn't in danger.
Brilliant piece. I plan to 'liberate' much of what you have posted. Absolutely brilliant!
Its not just anwar one of the most striking things that you could spot from the arial photographs from the gulf was all along the coast of the gulf of mex its lined with oil rigs. That is untill you reach the boundry of Fla. then they stop. The president needs to sign a presidential special order lifting the environmentill restriction on drilling along the fla coast. While at the same time designating to locations to build refineries. This has to be done. Even with renewed flow of tapping our own "forbiden" oilfield we don't have the ability to refine enough to meet our current and growing needs. That is whats going to bite us in the ass.
Dan has a good point:
We could institute a draconian socialist dictatorship now and the Democrats and the left would be ever so happy knowing everyone is miserable.
Of course it wouldn't work, it never has... But then, socialists don't care about results, as long as they have the power to exempt themselves from the rules they force everyone else to live by.
For example: Does anyone see the hypocrisy of a Barbara Streisand, who owns multiple homes and umpteen buzillion cars, yet she tells the rest of us to drive Yugos?
Or how about socialist wunderkid Rosie O'Donnel lecturing us on the need for gun control, yet has private body guards who are armed?
The Soviet Union collapsed because the promises it made to it's people were lies to keep them paying the tab for the elites to live in luxury... And yet the left would inflict just such a third world subsistence on this country for the same ends: their own political power...
You take the bus Dan, if you want to... It's a free country still... and as long as it is, I'll drive my SUV, even if I have to pay more for the gas which we could get cheaper if you folks weren't such whiners about the environment.
Off Topic: Thanks for all the posts on my blog. It's refreshing to get support for my ramblings! Keep The Faith, Brother!
No problem Patd: I don't know how you put up with that Cold Pillow. I'd have smothered him with the pillow a long time ago.
I called for a "draconian socialist dictatorship?" Curses! You read between the lines and uncovered my ultimate goal! Foiled again!
Nothing like mass transit, bicycling, living in smaller circles and walking to subjugate a free people. Vive le Schwinn!
Please...This isn't middle school, friend.
Well Danny boy... every solution you propose is a clear attempt to curtail people's freedom and force upon them the view of the world as YOU see it.
Now, I've heard alot of blathering about the "Religious Right" trying to force their views down people's throats.
But you folks have the arrongant, self righteous gall to think that your views are anything different.
I forgot.. when you folks have answers.... they are "mainstream."
Ride your bike if you want. Just make sure you're not in the way of my SUV... I don't brake for SOCIALISTS!
Explain why no refineries have been built in Republican controlled territory like say, FLORIDA? You guys are 100% wrong. It is not because of environmentalists that refineries have not been built, it is because of "not in my backyard".
wrong again eli.... Florida wanted to drill off it's coast and guess who came charging down there telling them NO WAY?
Was it the folks who LIVED in Florida? Nope! Just another sad collection of leftwing busy bodies from up north trying to tell the rest of us how to live as usual.
Check your facts and come on back. Refineries and oil drilling cover much of the "red states" that are in our backyard... not yours.
Here's a thought... let's do some drilling and refining in oh, say MINNESOTA? We can put up a few rigs in each one of those ten thousand lakes. And I'm sure you won't mind if we put a few refineries and oil terminals along the shore of Lake Superior in between Duluth and Two Harbors.
Mike said:
"every solution you [Dan] propose is a clear attempt to curtail people's freedom and force upon them the view of the world as YOU see it."
Perhaps. But by speaking thusly, you are suggesting that rights aren't being curtailed right now. My right to clean air and healthy water is being violated, yes? Asthmatics' right to walk outside on summer days without choking is being violated, yes?
You see, what we have here is not me wanting to take away people's rights. What we have here is a conflict of rights. Your right to drive however damn much you please vs. my right to a clean environment.
All I'm suggesting is that YOU shouldn't automatically have the right to trump MY rights. That would be socialism, as you define it.
I'd suggest that the conflict ought to be carefully weighed and considered and logical compromises should occur BUT that if we err on one side or the other, the right to a clean environment should come before the right of the convenience of driving.
Agree or disagree?
[and while I am certain that you are making a stab at humor, threatening to run down bicyclists legally riding on the road is a death threat, which is against the law. You'll just have to put up with me on the road or go to jail for terroristic threatening, friend. Or do the laws not apply to you and your comrades?]
OK Danny... just ride your bike on the road in my neighborhood and see what happens...
I didn't know you were such an environmental expert.
Would you please list your qualifications for me? I mean I only spent four years working for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, so I may be poorly informed on these issues.
You obviously know better, and of course your absolute moral authority makes your points unassailable.
Again, are you threatening people's lives (if so, tell me where you live and I'll be glad to provide you with an opportunity to murder me)? And you really worked for the EPA with that kind of attitude?
I'll be glad to answer your questions about my background, but would you at least try to civilly answer my questions, so we are working from some common understanding?
1. Do you agree that we have a conflict of rights here, not a situation where I'm trying to take away your rights?
2. Do you think that if there is a conflict of rights between the right to drive and the right to a clean environment, that we ought to lean towards the clean environment?
3. Do you agree that I never called for a draconian socialist dictatorship?
If you'd like a conversation, let's begin with those questions and I'll be glad to answer yours. If you just want to rant at people without understanding their point of view, then rant on brother, but know that you do so in ignorance (and that's not a savage slur against you, just the reality of what happens when we refuse to listen to the other side).
Dan:
Debate with you is a waste of my time. You have so completely swallowed the socialist kool aid that spending additional time in dialogue with you will only serve to take me away from more pressing, and fruitful tasks.
I doubt that there is ANY balance of rights that would satisfy you short of the full implementation of a draconian anti-progress socialist agenda. So you can call it what you want, but don't push the usual Orwellian crap about it being simply progressive or mainstream.
We already have in place the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and on and on and on. The air quality now is better than at any time in the last 50 years.
As someone who had the benefit of years of experience working for the Federal agency charged with the responsiblity of enforcing those laws, I can only conclude that your efforts are yet another extreme attempt to impose that draconian socialist agenda I cite above.
You have also demonstrated in posts at http://thedailymissive.blogspot.com/ that you find any effective use of American military power to defend against evil to be immoral. You even went so far as to twist my REPEATED point that the horror of World War II could have been prevented with the most modest of military action in the 30's.
All of this leads me to the unescapalbe conclusion that you fall into that realm of persons we would call blame America Socialists.
Sorry if you dont' like that.. but I feel sorrier for your suffering from such Orwellian delusions that you cannot understand the difference between good and evil.
Anyway, I don't see any point in wasting further time with you.
Delete, delete, delete.
Are you that insecure, friend? If so, then I reckon it's just time to "take me out," big fella.
George W could open ANWAR by executive order if he wanted to. I voted against Gore the first time and against the traitor, Kerry, the second time but I must say I'm very dis-appointed in the President for bring so cowardly about keeping his promises.He doesn't know what color 'red' is (for a veto)and that's put us on the verge of bankruptcy.
I hope I haven't gotten too far off the subject.
No problem JC. And I agree that the veto pen has been absent far too long from the table.
It would be nice if Bush were more like Reagan in that regard.
Bush has tried to compromise and get along with Democrats at every opportunity. In return he's been stabbed in the back.
It would be nice if we had a congress with some backbone too. But perhaps those folks need Reaganesque leadership to show them the way.
Gas has went up 100 percent since bush...........get a clue...
Get a clue: Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR and everywhere in the U.S. for decades.
Commenting by HaloScan
